Talk:Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Planetary Development
Miri Although Miri's Planet was never named, I think it would have been called Earth by the inhabitance. I mean it is Earth in every other way so why not that way. I actually call this planet Earth II. --TOSrules 22:27, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) I've removed "In actuality, the show was filmed before we knew whether cloud cover would be visible from space; it was only the subsequent Apollo missions that showed it was." because the Earth had already been photographed from space before the Apollo missions and because the physics involved was already well understood for centuries. --Δημόκριτος 17:00, 17 Nov 2011 (UTC) Questions and Comments The article needs some serious help. #Where is it stated that "the concept fell into disuse by the late 24th Century"? Just because the concept wasn't discussed, doesn't mean it wasn't current thought. #Likewise, how is the conclusion reached that "As a predictor or analytical tool, Hodgkin's Law no longer has practical value"? #"Kohms lived for centuries or at least a millennium" makes no sense since the latter is a longer period. In the episode it was clear that a Kohm could live to be well over 1,000, but it was not a minimum. #What is the basis for the statement as to Planet 892-IV: "No feature obviously corresponded to a Mediterranean Sea"? Surely not the planet shown on the screen as we do not see a cloudless full view of an entire rotation. #The statement "892-IV developed an analogue of Earth's Western Civilization, including a Roman Empire and Jesus Christ, about 300 years after those events transpired on Earth" is not supported by the episode. They had reached a 20th Century level 300 year later, but the formation of Rome and the time of Jesus could have been later, earlier, or the same as Earth. #I question whether the existence on a planet of a group of people who could pass as Human visually means that some kind of Hodgkin's-like conclusion needs to be reached. On Ekos, for example, just because they adopted Nazism doesn't mean that before that they were running parallel with Earth. I would not include those that were "helped along" merely because they liked the influences. The article itself says they don't apply to the law. And no TNG-era planets with people who look even a little like humans or were influenced by Earth people are included. The whole section appears forced and not needed. #Why bring up the Voth? What could they possibly have to do with spreading a culture they remember nothing of? In fact much of the "explanation" section is little more than a recital of alien influences on or visits to Earth. No explanation is actually given at all, other than as to the humanoid form. I can tackle it later as time permits. I just wanted to see if I was out in left field by thinking this needed a lot of help. Aholland 18:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC) ::You're fair on all counts. This is a tricky topic and needs some kind of background, this idea is based on Social-Darwinian theories which were at the cutting edge of Anthropology and Sociology in the 1960's when these episodes were written. But this style of thought has been largely removed from the social sciences since that time due to it's racist and social hierarchical undertones. Unfortunity because Star Trek has a futuristic point of view, we end up stuck with it. Jaf 19:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Jaf :::And here I thought it was just a clever way to reuse Hollywood back lots! Aholland 02:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC) :::: I am no sociologist, but as I understand it, Social Darwinism flourished in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, promoted by people such as Spencer and ultimately co-opted by the Nazi Party. It fell out of academic favor long before the 1960s and even popular thought shortly after WWII. I don't believe Social Darwinism has anything to do with Hodgkin's Law. In fact, I'd bet Roddenberry, like most 1960 progressives, was very much against the then-obsolete Social Darwinism Theory and its cousins (such as Eugenics). :::: I could obviously be incorrect, but it shouldn't be hard to look it up (I don't have a history or sociology text with me at the moment.). Sorry my $0.02 doesn't help with the list of problems above. But I've not seen much of TOS anyway, so I'm hardly qualified to discuss it or Roddenberry's views/motivations at the time. --Cepstrum 12:34, October 21, 2010 (UTC) Speculation The entire Theory section is speculative unless it can be cited - probably from The Making of Star Trek. — Morder (talk) 08:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC) :But it can be cited, it's mostly paraphrased from the Handbook of Exobiology, a picture of the text is actualy included in the section :P -- Capricorn 20:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I wasn't sure how "readable" that was though. — Morder (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Removed Section Removed as rampant speculation for obvious reasons. -FC 22:29, July 13, 2010 (UTC) :It is unclear when Omega IV developed the USA and Communism. Wu was born in 1806. His father was born prior to 1268. It was not stated in the episode whether the two of them were descendants of the people who fought the devastating wars, or whether they both participated in them. Doctor McCoy offhandedly concluded that it was the aftereffects of the wars that contributed to a "survival of the fittest" evolutionary path leading to a longer lifespan. But since we do not know the pre-war lifespan, it is not possible to say conclusively whether Omega IV developed their cultures after or before Earth did. Although it is reasonable to expect several generations to come and go before the significance of flags and documents are forgotten, other unspoken effects of the bacteriological effects of the wars (e.g., mental incapacitation or memory diminishment), could mean that the US was developed on Omega IV at any point in time. The implications and dates thus remain unknown. What is also unknown is whether these forms of government and documents were truly independently developed or whether the identical documents were the result of alien influences (such as Q or the Preservers) although it must be stressed that alien influence on Omega IV is at no point implied within the episode itself. Return to Tomorrow tie in In the TOS episode Return to Tomorrow, Kirk and party are referred to as "my children" by Sargon, the essence of an alien species devastated 500,000 years ago. He explains that 600,000 years ago his people explored and seeded the Milky Way. Now, as I understand it, this is covered in other areas of the canon, but a mention of it would seem appropriate, particularly given the implication made by Spock that Sargon's race might have had a hand in the genesis of the Vulcan race. The place that seems best suited for the addition would be in the 'Other possible explanations' section, which currently seems rather Earth-centric, between the mention of the Voth and the Sky Spirits. However, I would leave the final recommendation to those more knowledgeable than myself. Casual Zealot (talk) 05:20, March 5, 2013 (UTC)Casual Zealot Pna-cite Re the pna-cite; the term can be seen in this image, if you click on it to see the full size one. 31dot (talk) 02:48, April 11, 2013 (UTC) : I have corrected by removing pna-cite and simply removing the content that is speculation having nothing to do with the appearance of the term in ENT as a verified source. Thanks for the heads-up. NokiaTouchscreen (talk) 02:51, April 11, 2013 (UTC) :This page appears to be a victim of bloat with the majority of content existing as speculation with no citation to any verified source. I have corrected this. NokiaTouchscreen (talk) 02:50, April 11, 2013 (UTC) If you feel there are specific examples that are not proper examples of this law, feel free to challenge them; but it is not speculation to describe other examples of the law observed, it doesn't have to be specifically named as long as they fit with the description of the law. This is done in many areas on MA. 31dot (talk) 02:52, April 11, 2013 (UTC) : Regarding your replacement of this content, 1) the article was not blanked, but reduced to the content that is from valid sources; 2) there is nothing in any of the described episodes or films that references this idea beyond ENT, and this can be easily comprehended by noticing that the citations in the article are either nonexistent or relate to episodes that do not mention this concept. I assume this article is a special case that is allowed to violate the norms of MA and will respect the local customs. NokiaTouchscreen (talk) 02:55, April 11, 2013 (UTC) As I said, it doesn't have to be named in each and every example as long as it fits with what the law is. If Captain Picard was not named in a particular episode, you still know it's him. That's common sense. This isn't being "allowed to violate the norms of MA", it's describing a concept seen elsewhere, which is done throughout MA. Again, if you feel any of the examples listed do not fit with the concept, let's see them. 31dot (talk) 02:59, April 11, 2013 (UTC) And when 12,000 plus characters of text are removed from an article in one shot, it is not unreasonable to see that as a "blanking". Such large-scale removal of text should not be done without some discussion. 31dot (talk) 03:00, April 11, 2013 (UTC) : Everything that is not mentioned in the image from ENT does not fit in the article. If a console explodes and kills a crew member from such-and-such a technobabble explanation, why assume that every time a console explodes and it's unexplained that it belongs on that article? No one said anything about Hodgkin in any of the episodes described. A bunch of text in a book is not Captain Picard. If you see Captain Picard in one episode, and see him in another, he is recognizable because he is the same entity, represented in the same way, or if he is not instantly recognizable, he is described as Captain Picard by the dialogue or the context demonstrating that he is the same as the original representation. You cannot look at any of those episodes and see the text in the book; the law is not mentioned anywhere else in dialogue. As I said, I'll respect local custom and leave all the unsourced speculation there. It seems to be a useful place to break the rules if it keeps all this sort of unsourced speculation on one page, and I suppose it's a good reference to explain away the realities of the shows' budgets. NokiaTouchscreen (talk) 03:07, April 11, 2013 (UTC) Discussion to clean up article I'd like to open discussion about how this article can be improved while retaining the content that should remain. The obvious first step to me would be to remove the speculative discussion about the "development" of the theory into sociological and historical explanations "in-universe", as all of this is properly listed as needing citations - and there is no valid resource where those citations might be found as the law is not mentioned in any dialogue from any valid resource; the only description of it is as a biological theory from the image from ENT. From there it would seem to be a simple task of weeding out speculative extrapolation from that invalid material. NokiaTouchscreen (talk) 05:19, April 11, 2013 (UTC) (proper signature added after login) : To be specific, the unsourced (and unsourceable) text is as follows: The next development in the theory was the realization that there was a tendency toward sociological as well as biological similarities where environmental conditions were similar. For instance, by the 2260s Starfleet and other exploratory organizations had discovered numerous planets with humanoid populations that shared certain social constructs. Family units, spoken languages, space travel, dispute resolution through an organized legal process, organized war waged by governments – all of these were aspects of society that appeared to transcend any one single planet's societal development. (citation needed • edit) The Hodgkin theory was adapted to explain the observed instances of similarities in societies that had never had previous contact with each other developing along similar lines. The theory did not require identical development of a society, it simply offered an explanation for similarities. Finding nearly identical development was "virtually impossible" (as Spock remarked about the planet Ekos), and when found to be close to identical was viewed as an "amazing" example of Hodgkin's Law (as Captain Kirk remarked about the society on the planet 892-IV). (citation needed • edit) The examples here are spurious; they are not examples of the "development" of the "theory" because there is no valid resource indicating or describing that the "theory" found in the image of ENT "developed" through "realization" of anything by anyone. No one is demonstrated or described as "developing" or "adapting" that theory in any valid resource, or indeed, using it as any explanation at all for any of the examples provided. NokiaTouchscreen (talk) 05:31, April 11, 2013 (UTC) : Ah, I see there is a reference in . The only bits that need to be removed are the speculation on the timeline of the "development" of the theory. NokiaTouchscreen (talk) 05:39, April 11, 2013 (UTC) ::Yes, those two portions should be removed as uncited (and it looks like they've been there with the incite tag for a little while). 31dot (talk) 10:06, April 11, 2013 (UTC) Entire section should be removed It seems like the "Other possible explanations" section should be removed. None of the episodes cited mention Hodgkin's Law, it's only a series of fanon-based speculations that link them to the topic. Honestly I suspect the entire point of the section is a misguided fanfiction-y attempt to retcon Hodgkin's Law away. Needless to say this should not be the point of this article. -- 21:55, December 9, 2013 (UTC) Makull's homeworld Should the presence Hindu-Arabic numerous on the "time piece" in the Voyager episode "Time and Again" be added to the page? (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 06:13, June 14, 2017 (UTC)) Patterns of Force vs Omega Glory and Bread and Circuses Has it every been explained why Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Planetary Development wasn't even considered for Ekos but was (apparently) automatically used to explain Omega IV and 892-IV? If "The chances of another planet developing a culture like Nazi Germany, using the forms, the symbols, the uniforms of twentieth century Earth are so fantastically slim." then how in the name of logic could a world independently have the Flag and Constitution of the United States and another world have colloquial twentieth-century English complete with the names of the Roman gods? I know that in Forgotten History Omega IV was explained but AFAIK 892-IV hasn't been.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:32, July 8, 2017 (UTC) : Did it develop on its own or was it created that way by Gill?--Alan del Beccio (talk) 14:37, July 8, 2017 (UTC) You seemed to have missed the point I was making. Why was 892-IV's use of colloquial twentieth-century English and names of the Roman gods accepted as 'natural' while Ekos was deemed "fantastically slim" before it was found out Gill mucked around with the planet? To rephraze the original comment "The chances of another planet developing a culture like Ancient Rome, using the names of the Roman gods, and having colloquial twentieth-century English are so fantastically slim." In fact colloquial twentieth-century English is a West Germanic language with borrowed words from various Romance languages (ie language derived from Latin to official language of Rome) and Greek. So the odds of another world having the exact same linguistic pathway that lead to colloquial twentieth-century English are beyond "fantastically slim", they are near impossible. See the problem? --BruceGrubb (talk) 16:10, July 9, 2017 (UTC) Removed background note Furthermore twentieth-century English is a West Germanic language with borrowed words from various Romance languages (ie language derived from Latin the official language of Rome) and Greek. So the odds of another world having ''the exact same linguistic pathway that lead to colloquial twentieth-century English even if you are talking about a single provence are beyond "fantastically slim", they are near impossible.'' Basically amounts to a nitpick, and it's clear enough that none of this made sense without having to list all the exact reasons. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:24, July 10, 2017 (UTC) : There is The Nitpicker's Guide for Classic Trekkers. In fact it raises the issue regarding "Bread and Circuses" and "Pattern's of Force" on page 215-217. The comment on "Paradise Syndrome" on page 235 points out the inconstancy between "Paradise Syndrome", "Pattern's of Force", "Bread and Circuses", "Omega Glory", and "Miri". "If this (Hodgkin's Law) is such a well-estaplished law, why are Kirk and Spock surprised to find a Nazi civilization in Patterns of Force?" overview of "Bread and Circuses" pg 217.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:31, July 11, 2017 (UTC) I enjoyed that book. However, see MA:NIT. We cover certain things and leave others for others. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:14, July 11, 2017 (UTC) :Non nitpicks has "Established facts that are later contradicted by what may be a mistake are noteworthy (for example, Data's use of contractions, the number of decks on the USS Enterprise-E, the number of moons around Bajor)." as an example so the comment by The Nitpicker's Guide for Classic Trekkers regarding "Bread and Circuses" vs "Patterns of Force" is not a nitpick (as we define it). Q.E.D.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:34, August 22, 2017 (UTC) I was already confused when you brought up Patterns of Force, but now you've completely lost me. How has any of this to do with the removed note? -- Capricorn (talk) 13:42, August 22, 2017 (UTC) ::The problem here is that there is no central discussion on the point. There are breadcrumbs here and there and comparisons on one page to another page that is assuming that one page is valid and the other invalid, but because the first is the second should or shouldn't be and why one is this and one is that. Put-the-all-the-thoughts-on-one-page, rather than spreading them out on what?, 4 pages, and put all the thoughts together. Frankly, it is getting quite annoying chasing this discussion all over MA. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 13:54, August 22, 2017 (UTC) :::I agree with Alan del Beccio that this information should be here rather then scattered between here, "Paradise Syndrome", "Pattern's of Force", "Bread and Circuses", "Omega Glory", and "Miri" as The Nitpicker's Guide for Classic Trekkers references all five episodes regarding the inconstancy on how these cultures were similar to that of Earth while only two (in the series itself) were stated to be the product of interference ("Paradise Syndrome" and "Pattern's of Force"). --BruceGrubb (talk) 11:13, August 23, 2017 (UTC) As I see it it's less of a unified discussion and more like various attempts at trying to guide a new contributor who's taking a bit longer to integrate then most. Not ideal, but it's kinda natural that this would be spread out. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:37, August 22, 2017 (UTC) :The problem is what is and is not a nitpick is all over the place in how it is used and enforced. :"The creators need to decide whether this parallel Earth business should be considered an incredible occurrence or not." (The Nitpicker's Guide for Classic Trekkers page 235) what follows is summations of the contradictions between (in order): Miri, Patterns of Force, The Omega Glory and then Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Planet Development from "Bread and Circuses" is brought up and the whole thing ends "With this episode, The Paradis Syndrome the crew is back to amazement!" Since this raises the question of just how universal Hodgkin's Law really was it it belongs here rather then buried somewhere in the "Bread and Circuses" or "The Paradis Syndrome" page. Moreover, redundancy is not grounds for removal either as this exists for Miri and The Omega Glory as well. :I should mention that Mark Clark (2012) Star Trek FAQ points out that "Roddenberry had planned for the Enterprise to visit parallel Earth from the beginning" and Hodgkin's Law was the fig leaf that Roddenberry and Gene Coon came up with for "Bread and Circuses" though this created a huge continuity glitch with "Pattern's of Force". In fact, it seems everybody and their brother has pointed this out.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:03, August 23, 2017 (UTC)